fatherphil

well buck up all, you'll get a chance for a regime change in america in a couple of years and it won't come about by an act of violence. pretty evil system but that's the one we got here.

one thing for sure, this pretext for our naked aggression was a bit more blatant than u.s.s. maine explosion and just about as deadly as pearl harbor.

my hope at the end of it all is a chance for something new to come out of the middle east cause what they had there for the last 45 years sure sucked.

Gurdur

You keep on making this claim, as though Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, you keep on ignoing the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for that claim at all.

That claim, initially hinted at by the Bush admin, can be considered a lie owing to their complete failure to back it up.

As flor you, fatherphil; you complain I take shots but little else.

That is yet another false claim, and a rather unworthy and transparent evasive tactic.

I have written tons on this for quite a while; go back and search through the old threads.

Who am I rooting for ?
You know something ? Neither of us are in primary school any more, and if you want answers, ask decent questions.

To answer anyway:
I'm rooting for the rule of law, including internationally, and moreover the rule of law which is as just as possible.
I root for common human decency, IOW.

fatherphil

i took that as a shot

Koyaanisqatsi

Just a point of clarification, because those two novels have been extremely influential to me and my early understanding of socio-political tenets. I know it's 1984. I was making a connection between the two, since I have long since thought America is Brave New World on its surface, but 1984 underneath, hence a boot crushing a human skull with a painted on it .

Koyaanisqatsi

Setting aside my observations about how that is no longer a certainty, as evidenced by the Bush coup, funny how you can acknowledge the rule of law we pretend to follow in our own country, but fail to see the irony in how we apply it to others.

As others have quite correctly pointed out, you still seem to be under the propaga...impression that Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why?

It has been rather conclusively demonstrated that this was not the case, so, I'm curious. Why do you continue to argue as if it were?

Do you have evidence that Congress, the UN and both our intelligence community and the British intelligence community do not?

I'll assume you meant Iraq and not the entire "middle east," but, regardless, how is it you continue to fail to acknowledge that what we have done is much worse than anything "they" have done? Do you just blindly accept things that are told to you by authority figures, even after it has been directly demonstrated to you that said authority figures are liars, forgerers and instigators of murder through unjust actions?

If so, then why aren't you singing the praises of Hussein for invading Kuwait? I'm sure he provided his citizens with the same kinds of lies. Why do you follow our propaganda and not theirs? Because we just don't do those kinds of things?

We are right this very second, so, I'm genuinely curious. What exactly are you defending?

Zar

fatherphil,

The following is an evasion tactic:

Are you now under the impression that George W. Bush deserves credit for setting up our Republic, our Constitutional form of government, and our democracy? Why does mentioning our (nominally) democratic system have anything to do with the appropriateness of Bush Administration actions? If anything, Bush and his friends can be credited with helping to destroy these things with instruments like the Constitution-shredding PATRIOT ACT I & II, Total Information Awareness and the "one time only" ruling of the Supreme Court in "choosing" him as out leader. Also, in violating the U.N. Charter, the administration seems to have violated the U.S. Constitution, which says all treaties entered into are to be law of the land! Violating one violates the other. The new Bush Doctrine of preventive war is literally and absolutely no better than what the Third Reich claimed as its excuse. If you truly value our Republic and our democracy, and are not just using these words as vulgar rhetorical doormats to wipe your argument with, you will act post haste to advocate Bush's removal from office, as well as a lot of legislators from the House and Senate.

Another way to look at this is: Why would the act of any criminal get excused by the fact that the criminal came from a democratic country? How is this person any less a criminal? Yet another way to look at this is: What good is a democracy if you can't use your voice to root out bad men like Bush? You don't need to sell us on democracy...we're using it! Finally: how are we to retain this supposed moral superiority we have if we succumb to blatantly unscrupulous behavior?

fatherphil

obviously i don't agree with most of you on your take on bush or our actions in iraq. some of the comparisons made i think are way off base. but the fact remains that the present leadership of our country is by no means permanent and when the truth is exposed, those involved will suffer the consequences at the hands of the people (the american citizens) that support the system that put them in power.

if i accept your presumption that we have two of the same animal fighting it out with each other, then i just hope the lesser of two evils prevail. again i think the lesser evil is the coalition.

direct link to 9/11 is not necesary for me cause i'd be in favor of going after anyone who may seem to support or aid those that would be in favor attacking my countrymen. but that's me.

sir drinks-a-lot

Conclusively demonstrated, huh? This is the part I keep missing. Can you post a link to where you "conclusively demonstrated" that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

Jane Bovary

Conclusively demonstrated, huh? This is the part I keep missing. Can you post a link to where you "conclusively demonstrated" that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?


You're going round in circles Sir drinks-alot. The onus is always on the accuser to prove his case. If you can't do that, then...Case Dismissed.

Zar

Oh, boy. Are you serious? This is an extremely vague and muddleheaded standard for war. It is a recipe for world conflagration. Some "peace" and "security" that would be. I can hardly see who doesn't fit within that scope, except for countries which are long term avowed allies. Anyone could claim any unfriendly or rival country as an imminent threat just because they, in the eyes of the pre-emptive attacker, have "motive" and "means" of some sort, however weak.

I weep for my nation and its blinded people.